This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.Military historyWikipedia:WikiProject Military historyTemplate:WikiProject Military historymilitary history articles
This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-class status:
This article is within the scope of the Aviation WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see lists of open tasks and task forces. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.AviationWikipedia:WikiProject AviationTemplate:WikiProject Aviationaviation articles
This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-class status:
I have deleted a part of the article based on a very unsustantiated claim that posed C-130 as destructor of 17 indian fighters and claimed it had anti-aircraft artillery on its ramp, a very ridicous claim as never been observed and surely never would work if you want still to use the ramp for bomb delivery. I would add, that 17 indian aircrafts is about 50% of the extimated pakistani air kills on the whole war. So it is outrageusly insane to kept this unreliable source in the C-130 page. It's better to not having it, rather than to have it with such lunatic claims. 62.11.3.98 (talk) 20:01, 29 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for heading over to the talk page after having your edit reverted. I understand that your edit was made in good faith, however it seems that the claim is backed by a WP:RELIABLE source. Do you mind showing a source of the total Pakistani air kills? This will help your claim that the existing reference is false. Thanks, Transcendental36 (talk) 20:14, 29 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Shouldn't the article say what the plane's operational parameters are? It doesn't appear to say what the plane's altitude is, speed, or range. If it is there and I have missed it, perhaps it should be more prominent in the article? Chuggsymalone (talk) 13:42, 14 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hi all, first ever talk page post, following my addition of the globalise section template in the aerial firefighting section of this article. Apologies in advance if I've done anything wrong - let me know if so.
I added the globalise section template to the aerial firefighting section as the writing is very US-centric. The text assumes that the reader is US-based.
Examples:
unclear abbreviation ("Walker, CA" instead of [eg] "Walker, California")
use of generic terms to refer to specific things ("Congress", instead of [eg] "US Congress")
The content is quite US-centric though I don't have adequate subject knowledge to determine whether that's appropriate. A restructure with better signposting and consideration of level of detail would be good, suggest overall structure along the lines of:
[1st paragraph] "In the US, [...]."
[2nd paragraph] "C-130s have also been used in firefighting operations in [...]."
This would be supported by any further information available about C-130s use in firefighting operations beyond the US/Australia. Jrowls (talk) 01:02, 3 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]